DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US-12106849-B2 (“12106849”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following comparison where claim 1 of the instant application is represented in bold characters and where the reference patent 12106849 is represented in underlined characters:
A computer-implemented method of implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process, comprising: (A computer-implemented system for implementing and tracking a healthcare process, comprising:)
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations to perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections; (initiating a plurality of data task stations, the plurality of data task stations deployed across a plurality of computing systems, the plurality of data task stations linked using one or more interactive connections between the plurality of data task stations, each data task station of the plurality of data task stations associated with at least one party to a healthcare process, wherein the healthcare process is a teeth aligning process … enabling a first data task station of the plurality of data task stations on a first computing system of the plurality of computing systems, where the data task stations are interpreted as the autonomous data task stations and where there is a distinction between the first and other data task stations indicates that they are individualized modules configure to operate independently)
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, (enabling a first data task station of the plurality of data task stations on a first computing system … associated with a first party to the healthcare process, … the first data task station associated with a first pre-determined data content requirement, )
wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; (enabling, by operation of said automator, after said first data content satisfying said screen against said first pre-determined data content requirement, a second data task station of the plurality of data task stations of a second computing system of the plurality of computing systems, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the second computing system associated with a second party to the healthcare process … screening said first data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement of said first data task station, , where the remote connection is interpreted as the linking)
receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content; (enabling a data intake dock of the first data task station to receive a first data content;)
screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; and (screening said first data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement of said first data task station, said screening actuated by movement of said first data content associated to an automator of the data intake dock, where the screening being actuated by movement of said first data content associated with the automator is interpreted as the screening and validating of data by the first integrated automator.)
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station. (enabling, by operation of said automator, after said first data content satisfying said screen against said first pre-determined data content requirement, a second data task station … the second computing system remote from the first computing system, … enabling, by operation of said automator, a second data intake dock of said second data task station to receive the first data content from the first data task station … such that the automator of the first data intake dock automatically moves the data content from the first data intake dock to the second data intake dock, where remote connection is interpreted as the first interactive connection and where the receiving of the first data content from the first data task station interpreted as the transferring of the screened and validated data content)
Claims 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of US-12106849-B2 (“12106849”) respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the dependent claims of 12106849 are dependent on claim 1, and where claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 9-20 are related to a system, and claims 1-8 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process, comprising:
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations to perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections;
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement;
receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content;
screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; and
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations recite implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process:
perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, which is an abstract limitation interpreted as an interaction for the management of the healthcare of a patient,
screen received data content against first pre-determined data content requirement, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of data for the interaction between people for the management of the healthcare
receive data content, which is an abstract limitation for the interaction between people related to the healthcare,
screening and validating data received data content against the first predetermined data content requirement, which is an abstract idea for the management of the data from the healthcare interaction
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process for the management of the healthcare of a patient and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., task station) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 2 recites further abstract limitations of a screening of second data against a second pre-determined content requirement, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites further abstract limitations of enabling scheduling and notifications to potential patients, new patient onboarding, collection insurance info, submitting new patient paperwork, processing intra-oral scans, generating images, populating treatment plans, performing patient education, treatment planning, collaboration with multiple providers, sending notification of treatment outcomes, forms, reminders for appointments and paperwork completion, aligner therapy, prescription submission, record submission, manufacturing, tracking monitoring, management workflows for key events in orthodontics, key events, appointment scheduling, checks, new scans, constitutions for aligners, orderings, all of these further describing the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites further abstract limitations further describing the healthcare, dental or orthodontic process as claimed as workflows, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 8 recites further abstract limitations of screening second data content against a second pre-determined data content requirement, determining that the second data content does not satisfy the second requirement, detecting that the second data content as been changed, and detecting that the changed second data content satisfies the second content requirement, further describing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 9 recites:
A computer-implemented system for implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, which, when executed by the processor, performs operations comprising:
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations to perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections;
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement;
receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content;
screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; and
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station, wherein the system is capable of tracking a patient's dental or overall health throughout their lifetime.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations recite implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process:
perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, which is an abstract limitation interpreted as an interaction for the management of the healthcare of a patient,
screen received data content against first pre-determined data content requirement, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of data for the interaction between people for the management of the healthcare,
receive data content, which is an abstract limitation for the interaction between people related to the healthcare,
screening and validating data received data content against the first pre0determined data content requirement, which is an abstract idea for the management of the data from the healthcare interaction
tracking a patient's dental or overall health throughout their lifetime, which is an abstract limitation of an interaction between people for the management of the patient’s healthcare.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process for the management of the healthcare of a patient and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 10 recites further abstract limitations of alerting a provider if delivery is expected after a patient’s scheduled appointment as claimed, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites further abstract limitations of providers able to view and access treatment histories and predictive patient pathways for long term health tracking and analysis, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites further abstract limitations of real time verification of patient eligibility and integrations with workflows, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 13 recites further abstract limitations of monitoring tasks, view task status, and assign tasks to specific member with alerts and deadline notifications, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 15 recites further abstract limitations of managing subscription-based services by tacking product usage, providing real time reminders to patients and providers about upcoming renewals, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 16 recites further abstract limitations of future analysis and treatment adjustments, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 17 recites further abstract limitations of generating and sending patient communications comprising updates on appointments, treatment progress, or critical action items, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 18 recites further abstract limitations of analyzing patient health data over time to track recurring treatments, follow up appointments, or periodic assessments for ensuring ongoing patient care and treatment monitoring, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 19 recites further abstract limitations of allowing patients to manage their subscription-based services, track upcoming renewals, make payments, and receive notifications for cyclic healthcare processes as claimed, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites further abstract limitations of providers collaborating on managing subscription based cyclic processes for a patient, allowing for sharing across specialties for continuous tracking of treatments, appointments, and subscriptions, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A computer-implemented method of implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process, comprising:
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations to perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections;
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement;
receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content;
screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; and
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
the overall computer implemented method,
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations,
wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections,
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process,
wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator,
use of the first integrated automator,
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0038, 0039] of the Applicant’s Specification recites overall using processors and memory to carry out abstract steps in a computing environment. [0052] recites generally the use of the autonomous task stations as being generic computing devices. [0036] recites the generic individualized module. [0049, 0050] recites the use of the generic networking for the interactive connections between the computing systems. [0019, 0035] recites the first computing system where the healthcare process is being implemented on generic hardware. [0036] recites the linking of the first and second autonomous data task stations and how they are connected remotely. [0060] recites the generic configuration of the automator for performing the steps of the process. [0078] recites the automated nature of the transferring of data from one data task station to the other. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement and track a healthcare process, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 2 recites further additional elements of a second integrated automator, a third autonomous data task station, and a second interactive connection between the second and third task stations, however these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claim 3 recites additional elements of the transferring of the screen and validated content to the second task station via the first connection which recites mere computer implementation, and where the encryption of the data to ensure compliance with healthcare standards which amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 4 recites additional element of using an API that is compliant with interoperability standards, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 5 recites further additional elements of doctor-facing practice management systems, apps, locators, integration with third-party financing platforms, integration with scanners, doctor portals, planning software, integration with other third-party systems, use of CAD, and the overall steps being done automatically and virtually, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 7 recites further additional elements of the task stations being dynamically scaled up or down for real time scalability based on factors as claimed, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 9:
A computer-implemented system for implementing and tracking a healthcare, a dental, or an orthodontic process, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, which, when executed by the processor, performs operations comprising:
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations to perform an assigned task within the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections;
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement;
receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content;
screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; and
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station, wherein the system is capable of tracking a patient's dental or overall health throughout their lifetime.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
A computer-implemented system,
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, which, when executed by the processor, performs operations,
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations,
wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections,
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process,
wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator,
use of the first integrated automator,
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station, wherein the system is capable of performing steps,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0038, 0039] of the Applicant’s Specification recites overall using processors and memory to carry out abstract steps in a computing environment. [0052] recites generally the use of the autonomous task stations as being generic computing devices. [0036] recites the generic individualized module. [0049, 0050] recites the use of the generic networking for the interactive connections between the computing systems. [0019, 0035] recites the first computing system where the healthcare process is being implemented on generic hardware. [0036] recites the linking of the first and second autonomous data task stations and how they are connected remotely. [0060] recites the generic configuration of the automator for performing the steps of the process. [0078] recites the automated nature of the transferring of data from one data task station to the other. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement and track a healthcare process, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 10 recites the integration of the system with a shipping and inventory system, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 11 recites aggerating patient data across all task stations, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 12 recites integration with third party financing solutions systems, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 13 recites additional elements of real time task dashboards that uses built in alerts, however this amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claim 14 recites integration with external practice management systems for two way synchronization for updates, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 15 recites additional elements of merely automating renewals, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 16 recites additional elements of integrating with external imaging system to automatically populate patient data and store scan data for further analysis and treatment adjustments, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 17 recites the automated nature of performing the steps and recites mere computer implementation. Claim 18 recites additional elements of securely storing patent health data, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 19 recites additional elements of integrating with a patient facing application, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 20 recites further additional elements of secure data sharing, however this amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
the overall computer implemented method,
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations,
wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections,
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process,
wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator,
use of the first integrated automator,
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [0038, 0039] of the Applicant’s Specification recites overall using processors and memory to carry out abstract steps in a computing environment. [0052] recites generally the use of the autonomous task stations as being generic computing devices. [0036] recites the generic individualized module. [0049, 0050] recites the use of the generic networking for the interactive connections between the computing systems. [0019, 0035] recites the first computing system where the healthcare process is being implemented on generic hardware. [0036] recites the linking of the first and second autonomous data task stations and how they are connected remotely. [0060] recites the generic configuration of the automator for performing the steps of the process. [0078] recites the automated nature of the transferring of data from one data task station to the other. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted, the interaction between the task stations and transmitting data via a connection recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Regarding claim 9:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
A computer-implemented system,
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, which, when executed by the processor, performs operations,
initiating a plurality of autonomous data task stations, wherein each autonomous data task station is an individualized module configured to operate independently from the plurality of autonomous data task stations,
wherein the plurality of autonomous data task stations is deployed across a plurality of computing systems and linked using a plurality of interactive connections,
enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process,
wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator,
use of the first integrated automator,
automatically enabling, by the first integrated automator, the second autonomous data task station by transferring the screened and validated data content to the second autonomous data task station via a first interactive connection between the first autonomous data task station and the second autonomous data task station, wherein the system is capable of performing steps,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [0038, 0039] of the Applicant’s Specification recites overall using processors and memory to carry out abstract steps in a computing environment. [0052] recites generally the use of the autonomous task stations as being generic computing devices. [0036] recites the generic individualized module. [0049, 0050] recites the use of the generic networking for the interactive connections between the computing systems. [0019, 0035] recites the first computing system where the healthcare process is being implemented on generic hardware. [0036] recites the linking of the first and second autonomous data task stations and how they are connected remotely. [0060] recites the generic configuration of the automator for performing the steps of the process. [0078] recites the automated nature of the transferring of data from one data task station to the other. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted, the interaction between the task stations and transmitting data via a connection recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The dependent claims for each independent claim do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The following references have been considered, however have not been used in the above rejections:
US-20160110523-A1 to Francois teaches of multiple systems in the healthcare process including EMR and HCP systems interacting for diagnosing the patient.
WO-2020264140-A1 to Durlach et al. teaches of an integrated system for EMR servers to monitor the state of patients using facility protocols.
NPL “A methodology for improving efficiency in data transmission in healthcare systems” to França et al. teaches of improving communications between devices in a healthcare network.
These references do not teach aspects of the invention including but not limited to: enabling a first autonomous data task station on a first computing system, associated with a first party to the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process and a first pre-determined data content requirement, wherein the first autonomous data task station is linked to a second autonomous data task station on a second computing system in the healthcare, the dental, or the orthodontic process, the second computing system remote from the first computing system, the first autonomous data task station comprising a first integrated automator to screen received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement; receiving, at the first autonomous data task station, data content; screening and validating data, by the first integrated automator, received data content against the first pre-determined data content requirement;
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686